1.Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.,2008 CanLII 4982 (ON SC)

Mars, the manufacturer of M&M candies, had held its trademark in Canada since the 1950s. M&M Meats operated a retail chain across Canada selling specialty foods, including desserts. In 1991, M&M Meats applied to register a new logo with just the letters M&M. Mars opposed the application largely because M&M Meats had dropped the words "Meat Shops" from its logo. Eventually, the parties reached an agreement under which Mars agreed to withdraw opposition in exchange for M&M Meats' promise not to use marks in association with candy or toys and not to use letters in a style similar to that used by Mars for M&M candies. Subsequent amendments to the agreement resulted in M&M Meats agreeing to restrict the sale of ice cream and baked goods to company-owned or franchised stores trading under the name M&M Meat Shops. M&M Meats entered into an arrangement with Mac's Convenience stores in 2001, whereby Mac's became an M&M Meats franchisee. When Mars learned of the arrangement, it took the position that the sale of M&M Meats ice cream and dessert products in Mac's stores breached the agreement between Mars and M&M Meats.

Should M&M Meats be allowed to continue selling its ice cream and baked goods through Mac's outlets? In each Mac's franchise, M&M Meat Shops had separate signs, counters, displays, fixtures, and equipment. Does this additional information have any impact on your opinion?

2.Black v. Molson Canada,2002 CanLII 49493 (ON SC), 60 OR (3d) 457

Black obtained the use of the domain nameCanadian.bizthrough proper registration with the intention of using it for a website catering to Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs. This site was not yet established as it awaited resolution of the dispute over who had the right to use this domain name. Molson, which produces a product called "Molson Canadian," claimed the exclusive right to the use of the domain name on the basis that it was identical to its trademark. The brewer demanded its transfer from Black, and when he refused Molson complained to the National Arbitration Forum, the body that deals with these kinds of issues. The forum agreed with Molson, concluding that the name had been registered in bad faith by Black, who had no legitimate claim to its use, and ordered its transfer to Molson. Black brought this application to the Court to have that decision overturned.

Who do you think should be entitled to use this domain name?

3.Rains v. Molea,2013 ONSC 5016 (CanLII)

[Note: Your instructor may assign this case as a Shared Writing activity.]

Rains is a Canadian artist who has created a series of images that depict crumpled paper in various guises. Molea is also a Canadian artist who, quite independently, also created a series of works depicting crumpled pasper in various forms. Rains claimed that he has copyright in the whole (the series of crumpled paper works he has created) and that Molea was in violation of that copyright.

What do you think? Does Rain have a copyright in the series or only in each individual work? Would it affect your answer to know that Rains claims that his series, consisting of over 200 works, is a reflection of Greek and Roman architecture; that the series is entitled the "classical series"; and that each work features crumpled paper against a dark background? Also, each work is titled with a reference to a specific Mediterranean location. On the other hand, Molea produced his work, "The Molea crumpled paper works," as a process of using simple material to create drama by contrasting light, shadow, and volume.

4.Wenzel Downhole Tools Ltd. v. National-Oilwell Canada Ltd.,2012 FCA 333 (CanLII)

Wenzel was an inventor who had patented and produced a tool containing bearings that could better handle the download in well-drilling operations. National-Oilwell manufactured an identical product, and Wenzel sued for patent infringement.

Explain the appropriate remedies available to Wenzel. How would it affect your answer to know that Wenzel manufactured a tool sold to the industry that contained the bearing at the time of the patent application? Note as well that National-Oilwell also claimed that the development of the bearings was an obvious development to anyone in the industry.